7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The new cultural norm: reasons why UK foundation doctors are choosing not to go straight into speciality training

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The number of UK foundation doctors choosing to go straight into speciality training has fallen drastically over the last 10 years: We sought to explore and understand the reasons for this change.

          Methods

          We undertook semi-structured interviews with 16 foundation year two doctors, who had not applied to speciality training, from two regional foundation schools. Transcripts were thematically analysed.

          Results

          The reasons that foundation doctors are choosing not to go straight into speciality training centre around the themes of feeling undervalued, career uncertainty and a new cultural norm. They report major feelings of uncertainty regarding career choice at such an early stage of their profession and this challenge was magnified by a perceived lack of flexibility of training and the growing normality of taking time out from training. Trainees feel a lack of support in planning and undertaking an “FY3” year and being helped back into the workforce.

          Trainees overwhelmingly reported that they feel undervalued by their employers. Importantly, however, not going into training directly was not always a reflection of dissatisfaction with training. Many trainees spoke very positively about their planned activities and often saw a break in training as an excellent way to recharge, develop skills and prepare for the rest of their careers in medicine.

          Conclusions

          Taking a year or more out of training after foundation years has become the new cultural norm for UK junior doctors and reasons for this include feeling undervalued, career uncertainty and the perception that this is now “normal”. Exploring these factors with participants has generated a number of recommendations related to improving the workplace environment, allowing more flexibility in training and supporting those who chose to take an FY3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Foundation Year 2 doctors’ reasons for leaving UK medicine: an in-depth analysis of decision-making using semistructured interviews

          Objectives To explore the reasons that doctors choose to leave UK medicine after their foundation year two posts. Setting All four regions of Scotland. Participants Foundation year two doctors (F2s) working throughout Scotland who were considering leaving UK medicine after foundation training were recruited on a volunteer basis. Maximum variation between participants was sought. Primary and secondary outcome measures Semistructured interviews were coded using template analysis. Six perspectives, described by Feldman and Ng, were used as the initial coding template. The codes were then configured to form a framework that explores the interplay of factors influencing Foundation Year 2 (F2) doctors’ decisions to leave UK medicine. Results Seventeen participants were interviewed. Six perspectives were explored. Structural influences (countrywide and worldwide issues) included visas, economic and political considerations, structure of healthcare systems and availability of junior doctor jobs worldwide. Organisational influences (the National Health Service (NHS) and other healthcare providers) included staffing and compensation policies, the working environment and the learning environment. Occupational influences (specific to being a junior doctor) comprised the junior doctor contract, role and workload, pursuit of career interests and the structure of training. Work group influences (relationships with colleagues) included support at work, task interdependence and use of locums. Personal life influences consisted of work-life balance, and support in resolving work-life conflict. The underlying theme of ‘taking a break’ recurred through multiple narratives. Conclusions F2s give reasons similar to those given by any professional considering a change in their job. However, working within the NHS as an F2 doctor brought specific challenges, such as a need to make a choice of specialty within the F2 year, exposure to workplace bullying and difficulties in raising concerns. Despite these challenges, most F2s did not view their decision to leave as a permanent job change, but as a temporary break from their current working lives.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What do UK doctors in training value in a post? A discrete choice experiment.

            Many individual and job-related factors are known to influence medical careers decision making. Medical trainees' (residents) views of which characteristics of a training post are important to them have been extensively studied but how they trade-off these characteristics is under-researched. Such information is crucial for the development of effective policies to enhance recruitment and retention. Our aim was to investigate the strength of UK foundation doctors' and trainees' preferences for training post characteristics in terms of monetary value.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The postgraduate medical education pathway: an international comparison

              An at first sight seemingly coherent, global medical workforce, with clearly recognizable specialities, subspecialties and primary care doctors, appears at a closer look quite variable. Even within the most progressive countries as to the development of medical education, with educators who regularly meet at conferences and share major journals about medical education, the differences in structures and regulations are big. This contribution focuses on the preparation, admission policy, duration, examinations, and national competency frameworks in postgraduate speciality training in Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands. While general objectives for postgraduate training programs have not been very clear, only recently competency-frameworks, created in a limited number of countries, serve harmonize objectives. This process appears to be a challenge and the recent creation of milestones for the reporting on progress of individual trainees (in the US and in Canada in different ways) and the adoption of entrustable professional activities, a most recent concept that is quickly spreading internationally as a framework for teaching and assessing in the clinical workplace is an interesting and hopeful development, but time will tell whether true harmonization across countries will happen.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                A.Hollis2@nhs.net
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                27 August 2020
                27 August 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 282
                Affiliations
                [1 ]UK Foundation Programme Office St Chad’s Court, 213 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 9RG UK
                [2 ]Address: Flat 305, 89 Branston Street, Birmingham, B186BU UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.1006.7, ISNI 0000 0001 0462 7212, School of Medical Education, Cookson Building, , Newcastle University, Medical School, ; Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH UK
                Article
                2157
                10.1186/s12909-020-02157-7
                7450803
                32854721
                d52465fb-e9e9-4a26-9cbd-98765b7d09cc
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 19 January 2020
                : 17 July 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000774, Newcastle University;
                Award ID: N/A
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Education
                speciality training,junior doctors,foundation doctors
                Education
                speciality training, junior doctors, foundation doctors

                Comments

                Comment on this article